• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Murdoch: unchecked BBC expansion is 'chilling'

To me it depends on how it is shown. In some ways, being a radical decentralist, I'm a lot more egalitarian than most conservatives. I don't much care for long, centralised hierarchies.

No offense but you're ideologically opposed to it anyway. Let's remember that, although I don't really want to follow this exact model, the likes of Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh and such get good viewing figures in fact they dwarf their more liberal counterparts.

Perhaps you're correct about the very low-brow stuff. I'm not expecting a socially conservative show in the spirit of BB but the medium and higher brow stuff could be a lot more balanced.

That is the United States
The Liberal side is weak (no offence US Libs) compared to their conservative counterparts.
Their media sucks, where is the US version of the Guardian or BBC?
They have **** like FOX. FOX for news for God sake.

Btw LBC is pretty balanced in talkshows.
Nick Ferrari = Conservative
James O'Brien = Liberal
Jeni Barnet = Liberal
Steve Allen = SO conservative
Livingston = Liberal/Communist like
James Whale = Conservative

Nice mix!

Limbaugh? LOL!
That nut would be laughed off air i mean come on.
Hannity i could stand i suppose.
Beck is just a person who likes shouting.

Which out of those three are intelligent and can match up to people like Snow, Stephen Sackur, Paxman?
 
Last edited:
That is the United States
The Liberal side is weak (no offence US Libs) compared to their conservative counterparts.
Their media sucks, where is the US version of the Guardian or BBC?
They have **** like FOX. FOX for news for God sake.

Limbaugh? LOL!
That nut would be laughed off air i mean come on.
Hannity i could stand i suppose.
Beck is just a person who likes shouting.

Which out of those three are intelligent and can match up to people like Snow, Stephen Sackur, Paxman?
They're not kind of conservatives as probably have realised but they show what can be achieved.

I wouldn't write off British conservatives, after all the Daily Mail and The Sun are the biggest selling of Britain's newspapers I believe.

Bottom line though is that the media, as Anthony Sampson shows in his Who runs this place?, is probably the biggest single power base in our nation today. If social conservatives cannot get some more balance then they might as well give up and admit defeat because it is unlikely they will succeed with gaining some ground in the media. And the way I see it the more subtle values being put out in the entertainment based media programs are at least as important. These are more subtle and more insidious and pervade our entire culture. This is why even Fox can't turn back the tide in the US because they don't take on Hollywood(also they are wedded to corporate-capitalism and consumerism and such which break down traditional social structures but that is a different story.).
 
Accept defeat i suggest.
We cannot turn back the clock.
UK has liberalised more, accept it and try to work with it rather than fight against it.

Tories may have their chance with their whole "family" focus they have. I doubt it will suceed but hey.
 
Accept defeat i suggest.
We cannot turn back the clock.
UK has liberalised more, accept it and try to work with it rather than fight against it.

Tories may have their chance with their whole "family" focus they have. I doubt it will suceed but hey.
However as a conservative and decentralist I'd be very remiss to accept defeat because of the disasters I believe will accompany social liberalism, corporate-capitalism and centralisation. To quote Russell Kirk again:

If natural and institutional differences are destroyed, presently Bonaparte will fill the vacuum.


Rome liberalised under Augustus and Athens did after the Peloponnesean war and after all it is such paradigms of liberty like the Jacobins who are social liberals great masters in their crusade.

I don't think the situation however is a dire as you paint it. Or at least I hope not. It is the media that is driving things, if we can claw back some balance we might be able to at least halt the decline.
 
Last edited:
I don't think the situation however is a dire as you paint it. Or at least I hope not. It is the media that is driving things, if we can claw back some balance we might be able to at least halt the decline.

It depends.
Where do you stand on accepted issues or rather issues that have a consensus amongst many of the public like ...

Gay marriage, Abortion, Gay clergymen, Stem cell ... all those controversial issues i'd say the public is more than likely to fall on the liberal side

No need to be so disheartened.
I'm sure the country will be in safe hands with us liberals lol
 
Last edited:
It depends.
Where do you stand on accepted issues or rather issues that have a consensus amongst many of the public like ...

Gay marriage, Abortion, Gay clergymen, Stem cell ... all those controversial issues i'd say the public is more than likely to fall on the liberal side

No need to be so disheartened.
I'm sure the country will be in safe hands with us liberals lol
I disagree with all of those except perhaps stem cells and abortions. I don't think the liberals have one there at all. Gay clergymen is the business of Christians and there are still many opponents to GM. I'd say abortion is generally accepted but not to the level and not with the laissez faire attitude many liberals would like.

Obviously in other areas like British culture and multiculturalism and family values I'd say we had might have an upper hand.

Then there are areas where I'm not too interested or even oppose like capital punishment, harsh approach to crime, drugs and such where I think the conservative approach could easily be the more popular one. I wouldn't be surprised if a majority thinks you should castrate sex offenders.
 
Last edited:
I disagree with all of those except perhaps stem cells and abortions. I don't think the liberals have one there at all. Gay clergymen is the business of Christians and there are still many opponents to GM. I'd say abortion is generally accepted but not to the level and not with the laissez faire attitude many liberals would like.

Obviously in other areas like British culture and multiculturalism and family values I'd say we had might have an upper hand.

Then there are areas where I'm not too interested or even oppose like capital punishment, harsh approach to crime, drugs and such where I think the conservative approach could easily be the more popular one. I wouldn't be surprised if a majority thinks you should castrate sex offenders.

I'd admit conservatives have the upper hand on things like EU, Crime and punishment (Liberal politicans have this BS idea of only 'rehabilitation' and the law seems to be more on the side of criminals than victims)

Everything else, liberals have the upperhand.
Family is a toss up.
Conservatives imo are highly judgemental of single mothers etc.
Who wants some tosser telling you 'You done it wrong'

Some drugs should be legalised.
Making them illegal has little effect and has strengthened the black market and criminal world imo
But that is one area conservatives sadly dominate foolishly
 
I'd admit conservatives have the upper hand on things like EU, Crime and punishment (Liberal politicans have this BS idea of only 'rehabilitation' and the law seems to be more on the side of criminals than victims).
Interesting how we're reversing our positions somewhat. I'm not really into harsher punishments and such, I don't think it will work. You are right though about the people, I'm surprised capital punishment has been out of use for so long.
Everything else, liberals have the upperhand.
Family is a toss up.
Conservatives imo are highly judgemental of single mothers etc.
Who wants some tosser telling you 'You done it wrong'
Yes but quite a few people agree with them. Most Mail, Sun, Telegraph and Times readers would I'd say. They feel single mum's and similar are being rewarded for their stupidity with tax payers money. I'm not sure I agree with their reasoning on this but I do believe in traditional families, hell I believe in close extended families and partial revival of the paterfamilias.

Some drugs should be legalised.
Making them illegal has little effect and has strengthened the black market and criminal world imo
But that is one area conservatives sadly dominate foolishly
I agree with the fact it is foolish for soft drugs like weed and magic mushrooms( I once heard a chief constanble say his police would probably do nothing if they found someone with magic mushrooms, it wasn't worth the bother.) and I agree that however conservatives dominate. I don't think harder drugs should be legal, for one thing I don't want them to be developed by big business(perhaps I paid too close attention to Brave New World;)), but I favour a more rehabilitation based approach to taking them on.
 
Last edited:
Interesting how we're reversing our positions somewhat. I'm not really into harsher punishments and such, I don't think it will work. You are right though about the people, I'm surprised capital punishment has been out of use for so long.

I'm for harsh punishments.
Prison is for punishment not bloody 'have a holiday time'

Yes but quite a few people agree with them. Most Mail, Sun, Telegraph and Times readers would I'd say. They feel single mum's and similar are being rewarded for their stupidity with tax payers money. I'm not sure I agree with their reasoning on this but I do believe in traditional families, hell I believe in close extended families and partial revival of the paterfamilias.

Dailymail readers are ****tards.
The type who probably bitch about single mothers and have a perfect little nuclear family and then go work and shag the secretary.
I hate conservatives or anyone for that matter who think they are so damn good that they can lord it over the rest of us normal folks.
I know teenagers who have both parents are still off the rails and teenagers with a single parent and have studied hard and not in the trouble of the law.
Tories over here love to sit there and generalize up there on their pedestal.

Alot of Conservatives do.
'Don't abort'. What? Are they going to look after the children? I doubt it.
They would be the first to jump and attack taxes which would be needed for foster and social care tbh.

I am quite traditional in that sense.
I was raised not only by my Mom but also by my grandmother and my extended family. They all did, as a community thing.

I agree with the fact it is foolish for soft drugs like weed and magic mushrooms( I once heard a chief constanble say his police would probably do nothing if they found someone with magic mushrooms, it wasn't worth the bother.) and I agree that however conservatives dominate. I don't think harder drugs should be legal, for one thing I don't want them to be developed by big business(perhaps I paid too close attention to Brave New World;)), but I far a more rehabilitation based approach to taking them on.

What police officer would arrest people with weed?
But conservatives and DM readers love to jump on any talk of legalizing soft drugs as some sort of social decline rather than logical policy.
 
Dailymail readers are ****tards.
The type who probably bitch about single mothers and have a perfect little nuclear family and then go work and shag the secretary.
I hate conservatives or anyone for that matter who think they are so damn good that they can lord it over the rest of us normal folks.
I know teenagers who have both parents are still off the rails and teenagers with a single parent and have studied hard and not in the trouble of the law.
Tories over here love to sit there and generalize up there on their pedestal.
On the one hand I do disagree with some of the hyperbole they use but I'm not a fan of council-estate single mothers who don't bother taking precautions and then don't seem too interested in working. I just realise that these are a smaller proportion than the likes of the Mail make out.

I believe in reviving the older more corporate forms of the family, give the parents or more properly the elders a lot more power I say until well after. In Republican Rome you could be 40 but if the Paterfamilias was still alive or it wasn't you then you still had to bow to his authority in some things. Make a lot of property family property and give the family a lot more functions and then see if teenagers would be as quick to go off the rails.
Alot of Conservatives do.
'Don't abort'. What? Are they going to look after the children? I doubt it.
They would be the first to jump and attack taxes which would be needed for foster and social care tbh.
I agree here, although there is a divide between social conservatism and economic philosophies called conservatism. I believe in charity over state welfare but if it took state welfare to support these kids then I'd support that.
I am quite traditional in that sense.
I was raised not only by my Mom but also by my grandmother and my extended family. They all did, as a community thing.
Interesting, it is something I very much support. Not that it is generally achievable without significant economic as well as political and social changes.

What police officer would arrest people with weed?
But conservatives and DM readers love to jump on any talk of legalizing soft drugs as some sort of social decline rather than logical policy.
It is a shame. Sometimes they have some points such as Hitchen's attacks on the media's glamourising of drugs but I still don't agree with them on policy.
 
On the one hand I do disagree with some of the hyperbole they use but I'm not a fan of council-estate single mothers who don't bother taking precautions and then don't seem too interested in working. I just realise that these are a smaller proportion than the likes of the Mail make out.

The percentage is very small. Very small indeed but DM likes to strikes fear into people whether it is immigration, abortion or benefits.
Almost everyday there is some sort of big headline with attempts at fearmongering in the text.
That is the daily mail's bread and butter.

I believe in reviving the older more corporate forms of the family, give the parents or more properly the elders a lot more power I say until well after. In Republican Rome you could be 40 but if the Paterfamilias was still alive or it wasn't you then you still had to bow to his authority in some things. Make a lot of property family property and give the family a lot more functions and then see if teenagers would be as quick to go off the rails.

You'd be very surprised but that is highly similar to how Somalis do business.
I defer to my elders not only my parents.
And in Somaliland, we have a clan like system in which family have alot of say and we own alot of land but it is a family shared ownage and it is passed down from parent to child if they take the responsibilities of the field and suceed. They can reap the rewards and benefits that come with it
In the west children and teenagers are so damn useless. What can they do?
They have been weakened and made into ******s by the law and child services.

In Somaliland, from the time you are 9/10. You have learned to cook and look after yourself and as time progresses, more responsibility and work will happen. Discipline is paramount. If we do not have discipline, we will fail everywhere else. Discipline must start from the home and boy, my family never held back in ensuring we followed rules.

Hell when i explain to some of my friends how it is in E Africa, they looked shocked and said it was child labour :screwy

I agree here, although there is a divide between social conservatism and economic philosophies called conservatism. I believe in charity over state welfare but if it took state welfare to support these kids then I'd support that.

Fair enough but would every conservative? I doubt it

Interesting, it is something I very much support. Not that it is generally achievable without significant economic as well as political and social changes.

Not really
Africans not just Somalis are quite family orientated as are Asians in many respects.
My Grandmother lived with us when i grew up. It is absolutely unthinkable to send a relative to a home to die alone. Ridiculous imo.
And i will always remain my moms child no matter how old i am lol

It is a shame. Sometimes they have some points such as Hitchen's attacks on the media's glamourising of drugs but I still don't agree with them on policy.

I agree on that but that does not take away from the legitimate argument of legalising some drugs
 
The percentage is very small. Very small indeed but DM likes to strikes fear into people whether it is immigration, abortion or benefits.
Almost everyday there is some sort of big headline with attempts at fearmongering in the text.
That is the daily mail's bread and butter.



You'd be very surprised but that is highly similar to how Somalis do business.
I defer to my elders not only my parents.
And in Somaliland, we have a clan like system in which family have alot of say and we own alot of land but it is a family shared ownage and it is passed down from parent to child if they take the responsibilities of the field and suceed. They can reap the rewards and benefits that come with it
In the west children and teenagers are so damn useless. What can they do?
They have been weakened and made into ******s by the law and child services.

In Somaliland, from the time you are 9/10. You have learned to cook and look after yourself and as time progresses, more responsibility and work will happen. Discipline is paramount. If we do not have discipline, we will fail everywhere else. Discipline must start from the home and boy, my family never held back in ensuring we followed rules.

Hell when i explain to some of my friends how it is in E Africa, they looked shocked and said it was child labour :screwy
I agree with that Somalian system from the rough outline you have given. It is important to balance it of course, we don't want a system like medieval, highland Scotland where the clan was everything. There needs to be other authorities in society with similar pulls as well as the family and the state such as occupational associations, churches or similar organisations, local community, voluntary associations and such.
Fair enough but would every conservative? I doubt it
It depends most social conservatives and traditionalists would. There are people called conservatives mainly for their economic views and who are socially liberal as yourself. You can see many here.

Many social conservatives wrongly support corporate-capitalism, they believe it is relatively free market, a very wrong assumption, and simply don't understand its massively negative effects on the traditional society they are trying to conserve. These do tend to believe healthily on charity as preferable, which I believe is the correct assumption but yes sometimes they would unhelpfully withhold state help when it is really needed.


Not really
Africans not just Somalis are quite family orientated as are Asians in many respects.
My Grandmother lived with us when i grew up. It is absolutely unthinkable to send a relative to a home to die alone. Ridiculous imo.
And i will always remain my moms child no matter how old i am lol
The thing is that a family like any associations requires functions to stay together indefinitely. The state has taken many of the families traditional functions and devolved many more on the individual and the growth of capitalism and its corporate variety has worn down many of the families economic functions. I don't think all the traditional functions need to be given back, I think the state for instance should punish most criminals, but some are certainly required, including key economic ones.

The traditional family was largely self-sufficient and hence was opposed bitterly by capitalism as an area where its money relationships could not enter despite the obvious fact that if it completely wore down the family it would have social chaos which would undermine such a victory. Therefore I feel it is essential we give some of this economic power back to families, I feel that decentralist and libertarian solutions that allow a lot easier ownership of productive property are needed.

I agree on that but that does not take away from the legitimate argument of legalising some drugs
Indeed. There is little reason for having weed or magic mushrooms illegal. There are some absurd illegal drugs like kava kava the traditional pacific islanders drink that is somewhat similar to alcohol but actually makes the takers sedate and calm and if they drink too much they fall into a deep, refreshing sleep and has no serious dangers. It would be an excellent alternative to alcohol with all this binge drinking trouble but I believe it is illegal in Britain and highly controlled in Australia.
 
I agree with that Somalian system from the rough outline you have given. It is important to balance it of course, we don't want a system like medieval, highland Scotland where the clan was everything. There needs to be other authorities in society with similar pulls as well as the family and the state such as occupational associations, churches or similar organisations, local community, voluntary associations and such.

Ah well my system is just medieval.
Infact if you want de centralisation, E Africa is the place to go.
Government has next to no power.
It is locals/villages/clans that keep power and order

It depends most social conservatives and traditionalists would. There are people called conservatives mainly for their economic views and who are socially liberal as yourself. You can see many here.

Am i economically conservative?
I'd put myself as liberal so that is quite a surprise

I don't think all the traditional functions need to be given back, I think the state for instance should punish most criminals, but some are certainly required, including key economic ones.

Those who commit crime are more likely to do so for economic reasons and re offend again.
Govt. does not have a proper system to help those who left jail get work.
Not many people will hire those with a criminal record.

Indeed. There is little reason for having weed or magic mushrooms illegal. There are some absurd illegal drugs like kava kava the traditional pacific islanders drink that is somewhat similar to alcohol but actually makes the takers sedate and calm and if they drink too much they fall into a deep, refreshing sleep and has no serious dangers. It would be an excellent alternative to alcohol with all this binge drinking trouble but I believe it is illegal in Britain and highly controlled in Australia.

That would be better than alcohol and i can actually drink it! Seems like a good reason to legalise it lol
 
Last edited:
Am i economically conservative?
I'd put myself as liberal so that is quite a surprise
I didn't mean to suggest you were, sorry if you were offended.:2razz:

No I just meant there are people who support your right to snort cocaine but are economically clones of Thatcher.


Those who commit crime are more likely to do so for economic reasons and re offend again.
Govt. does not have a proper system to help those who left jail get work.
Not many people will hire those with a criminal record.
It is a shame, personally I support a rehabilitation approach.

That would be better than alcohol and i can actually drink it! Seems like a good reason to legalise it lol
It doesn't taste that good--- it is powdered plant root mixed with water and it isn't the kind of thing you'd drink if you were going clubbing but it would help with binge drinking and why it is illegal, seeing as it has thousands of years worth of use in the pacific islands, I can't understand.
 
I didn't mean to suggest you were, sorry if you were offended.:2razz:

No I just meant there are people who support your right to snort cocaine but are economically clones of Thatcher.

It is a shame, personally I support a rehabilitation approach.

It doesn't taste that good--- it is powdered plant root mixed with water and it isn't the kind of thing you'd drink if you were going clubbing but it would help with binge drinking and why it is illegal, seeing as it has thousands of years worth of use in the pacific islands, I can't understand.

LOL
Heartbroken i was. All my hard work gone ;)

Dislike some policies of Thatcher, think she did good on others.
What she did do tho was help make UK a more materialistic and selfish society imo.

Hmm ... then no i'll pass on knocking myself out and stick with sleeping pills which probably taste better and has the same effect
 
Funny comment.

Fine then Mr. Murdoch.. we will split up the BBC but only if we can do the same to your world wide media empire....
 
Funny comment.

Fine then Mr. Murdoch.. we will split up the BBC but only if we can do the same to your world wide media empire....

Very amusing.
Saying BBC threatens free journalism is a nice touch as well lol

And now we know why BBC is under such attack by Murdoch ...

BBC NEWS | Business | Murdoch signals end of free news

News Corp is set to start charging online customers for news content across all its websites.

BBC will never charge for news so it will cut into Murdoch's backpocket and affect competition ...
 
I like some of BBC programing a lot even if I have misgivings about its size and how it is funded. On the one hand I can't stand ads but on the other I'm a bit put off by how it is funded, particularly because it does have a subtle but constant culturally liberal agenda, as the likes of Andrew Marr have admitted.

Bottom line I like and I'd like to keep it but I'd like to see a bit more balance. How about some programs celebrating traditional values for once instead of simply social liberalism.

I remember the Military "Brits" turned OFF the BBC during Desert Storm...:lol: Do you?/COLOR]
 
Last edited:
Very amusing.
Saying BBC threatens free journalism is a nice touch as well lol

And now we know why BBC is under such attack by Murdoch ...

BBC NEWS | Business | Murdoch signals end of free news



BBC will never charge for news so it will cut into Murdoch's backpocket and affect competition ...

Not to mention that Murdoch has a huge part of the media market in the UK. He has a near monopoly on pay tv, he owns a large chunck of the newspapers in the UK. On top of that has cornered the markets in Germany now and is winning the battle in Italy against Berlusconi, where Murdoch also has a near monopoly on pay tv.

So as I said, if we are to do something about the BBC, then we certainly have to similar things to his empire.
 
Back
Top Bottom